Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartoon Network Universe: Project Exonaut

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. "Keep" !votes don't make any assertions beyond "It's Notable", without demonstrating how it's notable or providing any new sources. No prejudice against recreation if sources turn up. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network Universe: Project Exonaut

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has only one source and not enough sources to provide it. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 03:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ghits are to game publisher or to minor-looking game forums and blogs. Can't find it in Metacritic or cnet. Happy to have another look if someone can find substantial WP:RS's, but looks like it fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cartoon Network is a giant company and this is on their website. I do agree that it needs more references though. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 00:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this is enough on it own but at the very least it should be a good start [[1]]. The site in question is also listed a reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Very Notable, a well written article, a detailed description is given, meets most of the requirements, Citations are the only thing it lacks, anyone who knows any good references please add them this is entirely salvagable. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A well written article on a notable topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence of notability from reliable secondary sources, in the article or coming from a search. It's not surprising, MMOGs in general outside of a handful of titles like World of Warcraft are generally ignored by the press, and this appears to be a comparatively simple Unity-based game, not a sprawling MMORPG. No prejudice against recreation should sources appear, though the lack of them some months after the game's release suggest it's unlikely. Someone another 17:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.